“At the same time, I did not send Opposition lawmakers who are not independent because I do not want to be accused of trying to decrease their numbers. Because of that I didn’t send lawmakers from BN or Opposition. I sent independents because they do not vote for BN or Opposition. It would not be a problem if I sent 10 independents” – Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz

No there are problems.

In principle, the delegation to Malaysia-United States Caucus should comprise of MPs/representatives from BN, Independents as well as Opposition having more than 1/3 voting strength in Parliament.

The “Independents” cannot be counted as Opposition’s reps though they may be ex-PKR/PR’s and especially so when the two MPs Zulkifli Noordin and Datuk Zahrain have been critical of the Opposition and its head at the time of or soon after their breaking ranks from PKR.

How can they be considered truly “independent” in the sense that they “do not vote for BN or Opposition” (as Nazri says) when they were not independent from day one but part of PKR/PR and broke ranks precisely because of disagreement with the Opposition and its head?

Hence the delegation is significantly not representative of Parliament composition here, and there’s also a risk that the US’s side will not deem the Malaysian delegation as representative of Malaysian Parliament.

Also if the Caucus were to serve as a platform through which joint programmes might be planned involving US Congress members and Malaysian MPs, would it be fair to exclude Opposition MPs or to have a situation where US Congress members seeking feedback would be skewed by inputs negative against the Opposition without any of its MPs there to rebut or correct any erroneous negative impression?

The Minister’s excuse that he didn’t want to be accused of “decreasing Opposition’s number” does not arise.

I don’t think Opposition needs him to think of its advantage in terms of bloc voting, diminished, if Opposition reps were to be sent to the Caucus.

All one has to do is to consult and make the offer. It’s really up to them (Opposition) whether it wants to refuse the offer or accept at its own peril when it comes to bloc voting. However I don’t think an offer has even been made to the Opposition! Nor has it been consulted!

Their agenda could be more than what the eyes see. The Malaysia-United States Caucus represents an opportunity to fraternise with US’s congressmen influencing US foreign policies. Improving bilateral trade relations with the US is only but a part of the objective. More important is to “charm” the congressmen to hold a more neutral if not favourable view of the government and not side Anwar Ibrahim, whether on the Sodomy or other issues. For that, the government’s side of the story must be explained, Anwar has to be disparaged and cast in unfavourable light to sever the umblical cord of support linked to the Americans… And who better will corroborate the Govt’s version of Anwar than Anwar’s own ex-trusted PKR colleaques, now turned so called ‘independent’ going along to the Caucus to testify? That is why no Opposition MPs are invited. They might rebut or contradict that official version!

Now the APCO’s controversy provides another perfect excuse to disparage Anwar.

APCO itself is a US consultancy corporation. Sure it has Jewish links, whether consultants, shareholders or strategic partners/affliates. However does that make APCO incompetent or a villian?

It is a separate entity from those it works for or with and these are not only Jews/Zionists but Australians, Indians, Chinese, or even Malaysians, indeed all persons who under US culture of meritocracy are competent and can contribute to its profits. To impute or insinuate otherwise is to commit the fallacy of guilt by association that goes something like this: 1. Malaysians (M) cannot associate with Zionists (“Z”) 2. APCO (A) works with some Zionists (“Z”) and therefore 3. APCO (A) may be likened to Zionists (“Z”) and independent from its merits Malaysians (“M”) cannot associate or do business with APCO (“A”) (even if APCO works with many others who are not Zionists and is itself a separate corporate entity from those with whom it works). If this line of argument were used then the same will be true that Malaysia will not then be able to work with the US Congress on the Caucus counting amongst whom are many Jews and supporters of Israel in Zionist sense! The APCO issue is therefore a perfect God-sent issue for them to tell US Congressmen that Anwar whom they and notable US govt official like U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz of Polish Jewish descent used to defend (during his fall from grace in Mahathir’s time) has no qualms now to unscupulously play the anti-semitic card by raising the APCO issue if he deems it expedient for his political objectives.

This is not going to go down well with US Congressmen many of whom, whether Jews or not, support the Israel’s right to survival and nationhood. Can Anwar afford to lose the patronage or goodwill of some of these US Congressmen and important figures in the government? Is he willing to trade long term good will of these people for short term game of embarrassing the government via APCO’s appointment via of an obvious logical fallacy of association?

And which Opposition MP is there in the Malaysian delegation to the Malaysia-United States Caucus to speak in defence of Anwar if such allegations are then made against the Opposition head to the Americans? There is none – because of the Minister’s excuse that the Oppopsition want to stay home to preserve their numbers to vote en bloc against government’s bills. How convenient, everything falls into place!

“Your proposition has no basis. It was based on your own intuition and impaired logic. You are trying to be “smart” when you are actually an ass.Again you are dumb, are you saying US Congressmen can’t differentiate Mahathir from Anwar? – postings 32 & 33 by Lim Kam Put.

Well if this is the best you can do, Lim Kam Put, I’ll waste no time giving a reasoned response. It does require any.

You have to remember what is lacking in substance and chain of reasoning in reply – and thoughts – cannot be made up or camouflaged by spewing emotional, abusive and vile language. Educated and sensible people can easily see through that.

Nor is it necessary for me to reciprocate and descend to respond at your level of abusive language.

Your final comment – “Jeffrey, you have to try harder to be able to think like me….” is a clear expression by you of a deep seated inferiority complex. I am in agreement that it is fully justified.